Scientist better support evolution (or else)

[California Tim]

Many people who support evolution jump on the "anti-science" bandwagon when referring to anyone who does not agree or any creation scientist not published in a "peer review" journal. Supposedly they claim to be open-minded, but the truth is usually far more blatant as this will demonstrate. The following scientist had his "ID" article published in a peer review journal and the ramifications to his career are predictable.

If you think that Evolutionists are NOT engaged in a war for their RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY then this article might wake you up.

Here's just the opening paragraph

The Branding of a Heretic
Are religious scientists unwelcome at the Smithsonian?

BY DAVID KLINGHOFFER
Friday, January 28, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

The question of whether Intelligent Design (ID) may be presented to public-school students alongside neo-Darwinian evolution has roiled parents and teachers in various communities lately. Whether ID may be presented to adult scientific professionals is another question altogether but also controversial. It is now roiling the government-supported Smithsonian Institution, where one scientist has had his career all but ruined over it.​

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220

 

[bdfoster]

There's another side to this story.
http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/archives/sarkarlab/002980.html
also,
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000777.html#c14871

 

[California Tim]

Yes indeed. And now, the "rest of the story" as Paul harvey would say. take a look at the fallout in the aftermath:

We endorse the spirit of a resolution on Intelligent Design set forth by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), and that topic will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings . We are reviewing editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/ZZ/608_bsw_repudiates_meyer_9_7_2004.asp​

As clearly indicated, the very concept of ID will no longer even be "CONSIDERED" for review. How's that for "objective"? I can understand dismissing a given article for less than scholarly work or misrepresentations (when substantiated), but when the entire concept is thrown out - barred from consideration, it clearly demonstrates the inability or unwillingness by the "scientific elite" to objectively consider any possibility that conflicts with their preconceived world-view of the way things must be.

This is particularly relevent to TE'ist IMO. As shown above, the ID concept which, for all intents and purposes is shared by YEC'ist and TE'ist alike, will never be given the neutral status necessary for competent review henceforth. (actually, YEC'ist have been saying this all along, but now it's finally out in the open). So the next time you all want to spout out how none of the evidence supports a YEC view, and how secualr science and creation are perfectly harmonious, and how scientists are "neutral" on the matter - do try to consider the source of your information - it's like playing with a stacked deck and the results are predictable.

 

[The Lady Kate]

As clearly indicated, the very concept of ID will no longer even be "CONSIDERED" for review. How's that for "objective"? I can understand dismissing a given article for less than scholarly work or misrepresentations (when substantiated), but when the entire concept is thrown out - barred from consideration, it clearly demonstrates the inability or unwillingness by the "scientific elite" to objectively consider any possibility that conflicts with their preconceived world-view of the way things must be.

You will find that the scholarly work on flat Earth, geocentricism, and the whole turning-lead-into-gold trick is also barred from consderation. How's that for "objective?"



I for one am curious about ID...if for no other reason than to see how far it progresses beyond "This looks really complicated...We can't figure it out...a God must have done it."

This is particularly relevent to TE'ist IMO. As shown above, the ID concept which, for all intents and purposes is shared by YEC'ist and TE'ist alike, will never be given the neutral status necessary for competent review henceforth. (actually, YEC'ist have been saying this all along, but now it's finally out in the open). So the next time you all want to spout out how none of the evidence supports a YEC view, and how secualr science and creation are perfectly harmonious, and how scientists are "neutral" on the matter - do try to consider the source of your information - it's like playing with a stacked deck and the results are predictable.

You're drawing a parallel between ID and YEC.... which is precisely why it's always been tossed out on its ear.

Both mainstream science and the legal system labeled ID as "back-door creationism..." and so it appears to be.

 

[Vance]

Tim, you do know that these ID theorists you are promoting accept an earth billions of years old, reject a local flood and most of the leaders even accept that species developed over those billions of years from earlier species, don't you? Phillip Johnson calls YEC'ism silly and Behe and Denton are equally scornful of what you believe in.

In fact, if ID, as it is presented by the leaders of the movement, was to become the predominant approach to origins within the Christian Church in the US, it would actually be a major blow to YEC'ism and more in line with what TE's have thought all along. They say that evolution was micromanaged, and "guided", and could not have happened via wholly natural processes, thus God. TE's say that God could have set it up to happen naturally. On this point, ID and TE are dramatically closer that ID and YEC.

I don't see how YEC's are backing a movement whose leaders are completely opposed to YEC'ism. Probably it is because they cater to the fundamentalists to get the backing they want, while not bringing up the vast differences very often. Most YEC's think ID is just a "scientific" underpinning to Young Earth Creationism, but it is nothing of the sort.

Personally, I don't think TE should be taught in schools either. Let the school teach the science part, and churches teach the God part, and we have it all covered in its proper sense.

 

[gluadys]

There's another side to this story.
http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/archives/sarkarlab/002980.html
also,
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000777.html#c14871

Here is another important aspect of this incident which is not brought out in full in the articles above. This is from Sternberg's personal web page. http://www.rsternberg.net/


"As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself, something I had done before in other appropriate cases. "

Emphasis added.

I don't question Sternberg's qualifications, but while he may consider it appropriate to appoint himself as a reviewer of a paper for a journal which he is editing, I find that a conflict of interest. Even if the rules of the journal did not spell it out as such, I find it difficult to accept that anyone would think it non-controversial to proceed in such a fashion.

Sternberg claims he involved two other scientists in the peer-review, and as per custom they remain anonymous. But it appears that neither of these was an associate editor of the journal, as required by the normal editorial process of the journal.

Irrespective of the quality of Meyer's work or his support for ID, the whole process by which the paper was published is irregular and begs the question of why.

 

[seebs]

My theory that creatures are individually fashioned by tiny elves who crawl invisibly into the womb and then assemble them from base materials using tiny hammers has been treated nearly as shamefully.

 

[bdfoster]

Yes indeed. And now, the "rest of the story" as Paul harvey would say. take a look at the fallout in the aftermath:

We endorse the spirit of a resolution on Intelligent Design set forth by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), and that topic will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings . We are reviewing editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/ZZ/608_bsw_repudiates_meyer_9_7_2004.asp​

Didn't you see the line before that that says,"The publication of Meyer’s article raised controversy partly because of its defense of ID, but mainly because the defense was intellectually shoddy (which, as ID opponents love to point out, was only to be expected)."?

As clearly indicated, the very concept of ID will no longer even be "CONSIDERED" for review. How's that for "objective"? I can understand dismissing a given article for less than scholarly work or misrepresentations (when substantiated), but when the entire concept is thrown out - barred from consideration, it clearly demonstrates the inability or unwillingness by the "scientific elite" to objectively consider any possibility that conflicts with their preconceived world-view of the way things must be.

I am so tired of hearing this paranoid anti-establishment garbage. There is no "scientific elite". That’s a made up term, invented by the “scientifically challenged” (the PC term), who feel threatened by anyone with a science degree who doesn’t agree with them. The scientific establishment is made up of individuals who are in brutal competition with one another. Many people think there is great pressure to go along with reigning paradigm. But the opposite is actually the case. Scientists are always trying to do research that stretches the bounds of convention. Everybody wants to be the next Newton or Einstein. But this is very difficult to do and most research falls into the mainstream of established paradigm. This is not because of any pressure to conform. It’s because of the enormous weight of evidence that must support any reigning paradigm. For this reason there is intense skepticism of research that is outside the mainstream. Any theories that go against the mainstream generally are in for a very difficult, up hill struggle. As with any human enterprise there is cooperation, as well as backstabbing. But there is no conspiracy.

Brent

 

[The Lady Kate]

My theory that creatures are individually fashioned by tiny elves who crawl invisibly into the womb and then assemble them from base materials using tiny hammers has been treated nearly as shamefully.

Because you have completely ignored the mountains of evidence that shows your so-called "elves" are actually gnomes!

The gnome, as we all know, is the most often maligned figure in science...

 

[SBG]

I am so tired of hearing this paranoid anti-establishment garbage. There is no "scientific elite". That’s a made up term, invented by the “scientifically challenged” (the PC term), who feel threatened by anyone with a science degree who doesn’t agree with them. The scientific establishment is made up of individuals who are in brutal competition with one another. Many people think there is great pressure to go along with reigning paradigm. But the opposite is actually the case. Scientists are always trying to do research that stretches the bounds of convention. Everybody wants to be the next Newton or Einstein. But this is very difficult to do and most research falls into the mainstream of established paradigm. This is not because of any pressure to conform. It’s because of the enormous weight of evidence that must support any reigning paradigm. For this reason there is intense skepticism of research that is outside the mainstream. Any theories that go against the mainstream generally are in for a very difficult, up hill struggle. As with any human enterprise there is cooperation, as well as backstabbing. But there is no conspiracy.

Brent

I don't think any of the creationist feel threatened. For if God is with us (all believers) whom should we have to fear?

Let me ask you, does jealousy exists in scientists who are people? Do you think they ever get jealous? Do you think they might suppress another from succeeding so that they maintain what they have and possibly create a way for themselves to succeed? Basically, do you think scientists can be selfish? How about prideful?

Would you believe that in the government laws that would greatly benefit the people are suppressed because government officials don't like one another?

I find it rather far fetch to claim that scientists, being people, aren't selfish, don't exhibit jealousy, and aren't prideful. Are scientists somehow better than the rest of us, who do struggle with these things, because they hold a PhD?

My point is, not to dismiss scientists or anything, but to realize they exhibit emotions as I described as much as we do, if not more. The field is highly competative, and as many have said here each wants to stake his own fame and glory and get rich. This alone, by most all evolutionists agree on this forum, shows that fame and fortune drive the scientists. So if this drives them to come up with something better, than it is equally true/possible that money drives scientists to keep someone from succeeding.

Those who have devoted their lives to evolutionary studies, and there are many, make their money from doing so. Would they be willing allow someone to come and shake up their whole way of making a living? For if evolution was proven to be false, what would these scientist work on if they have already spent their whole lives on evolution? I am sure they could find something else, but would they want to?

I believe that science is very much like politics. It is suppose to be a well oiled machine, ready to listen to new ideas, but the inner greed and pride keep things from happening the way they are suppose to. Only things that benefit many, instead of few will make it and be heard.

That is reality.

 

[bdfoster]

Let me ask you, does jealousy exists in scientists who are people? Do you think they ever get jealous? Do you think they might suppress another from succeeding so that they maintain what they have and possibly create a way for themselves to succeed? Basically, do you think scientists can be selfish? How about prideful?

Didn’t you read my post?

I find it rather far fetch to claim that scientists, being people, aren't selfish, don't exhibit jealousy, and aren't prideful. Are scientists somehow better than the rest of us, who do struggle with these things, because they hold a PhD?

That would be a far fetched claim. Once again, please read my earlier post.

My point is, not to dismiss scientists or anything, but to realize they exhibit emotions as I described as much as we do, if not more. The field is highly competative, and as many have said here each wants to stake his own fame and glory and get rich. This alone, by most all evolutionists agree on this forum, shows that fame and fortune drive the scientists.

Fame and fortune??? Oh pleeese!!! That’s one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard. Newton and Einstein had notoriety but certainly not fortune. Newton lived in a different time and was quite well off, but Einstein bordered on poor. He made what any other professor made. The only rich scientist I know of is that guy who ran the company working on the human genome project (I forget his name). OK there are media harlots like Carl Sagan and Robert Ballard, and occasional entrepaneurs who strike it rich, but other than that there is no big money to be made in science. My pastor makes more money than I do!

So if this drives them to come up with something better, than it is equally true/possible that money drives scientists to keep someone from succeeding.

And how better to do that than to shoot down someone else’s research supporting evolution, especially when you know the “real” evidence supports YEC? If evolution, or any other scientific paradigm, could be seriously challenged by any researcher trying to make a name for himself, it would. But it can’t.

Those who have devoted their lives to evolutionary studies, and there are many, make their money from doing so. Would they be willing allow someone to come and shake up their whole way of making a living? For if evolution was proven to be false, what would these scientist work on if they have already spent their whole lives on evolution? I am sure they could find something else, but would they want to?

I’ve always wanted to drive trucks.

I believe that science is very much like politics. It is suppose to be a well oiled machine, ready to listen to new ideas, but the inner greed and pride keep things from happening the way they are suppose to. Only things that benefit many, instead of few will make it and be heard.

I think it’s more like free enterprise. The greed and pride that you think interferes with the ideal is actually one of its driving forces. The competition of ideas means that only the best survive (Hmmm… de ja vu). But for every scientist who is motivated by a desire for notoriety, there are several who are simply driven to do the best job they can. Many scientists are Christians believe it or not, and many who aren’t are obsessively honest. Science is a pursuit of truth and many non-Christian scientists worship that ideal, putting some Christians to shame with their obsessive honesty and work ethic.

Earlier you said

I don't think any of the creationist feel threatened. For if God is with us (all believers) whom should we have to fear?

Who are you to say who God is with? The typical YEC characterization of mainstream science is very insulting to professional scientists who are Christians. And there are thousands.